Truly the future of software development.

That is true. Take, for example, movies. Cinema studious with big budgets are usually very risk averse, simply due to the cost of failure being so high. So they have to make sure they can turn a profit. But how can you make sure any given thing will be profitable? Well, that is a prediction, and to predict anything, you need data to base that prediction on. Predictions are based on past events. And so they make sequel after sequel. They make things that have been proven to work. New things, by virtue of being new, don’t have tons of data (past examples) for them to make good predictions and so they avoid new things. This results in the homogenization of art. Homogenization induced by Capital, has Capital only sees value in profit, and thus, for Capital, only predictably profitable art is given the resources to flourish.

Machine Learning made images art the epiphany of this. All output is based on previous input. The machine is constructed to not deviate too much from the training data (loss function). And thus struggles to do things it does not have much data on, like original ideas.

I think that what we’re likely to see are parallel worlds of art. The first and biggest being the homogenous, public and commercial one which we’re seeing now but with more of it produced by machines, and the other a more intimate, private and personal one that we discover by tuning back into our real lives and recognising art that has been made by others who are doing the same.

That’s kind of already a thing. Just without the AI. Like in the example above, Capital wants predictable profit. Therefore only the most widely appealing, proven to be profitable art will get significant budgets. Creative and unique ideas are just too risky, and therefore delegated to the indie space, where, should any ever become successful, Capital is willing to help… Under the condition they get all the money (Think, for example, how Spotify takes most of the revenue made by the songs they distribute).

By “Capital” I mean those who own things necessary to produce value.

Reminds me of AI: The New Aesthetics of Fascism by Gareth Watkins.

If all it takes to be a “real artist” is drawing proficiently

I think you are miss-understanding the argument.

Pro-AI folk say that being anti-AI, as a digital artist, is hypocrisy because you also used a computer. Here it is shown that, despite not using a computer, the artist is still able to create their art, because there is more to the visual arts than the tools you have to make it. This puts rest to the idea that using digital art tools is somehow hypocritical with being against AIGen.

The argumentor is not saying that not knowing how to draw proficiently excludes being an artist. They are just saying that real artist do not need a computer program to create their arts, much like performances or installation artists you mentioned.

nor do I have the talent

And why do you think you do not have “talent”? What is that “talent” you speak of? Is it something people are born with? What is the problem with what you make, if all you care about is what people put into art?

Art is whatever people put into it

“It” what? The pronoun “it” is referring to what? Art? Without this clarification I cannot accurately make sense of anything else in your response.

Keep in mind that, while defining a term, you cannot use that term in it’s own definition.

Well, it depends on your definition of “best”. But if we go by total score, my “best” post is this one and my “best” comment is this one.

Art can be automated

Under what definition of art can that be possible? Is art to you nothing more than an image? Why automate art and not other tasks? What is the point of automating art? Why would you not want to make art yourself and instead delegate it to a machine?

This is a matter of coding a good enough neuron simulation, running it on a powerful enough computer, with a brain scan we would somehow have to get - and I feel like the brain scan is the part that is farthest off from reality.

So… Sci-Fi technology that does not exist. You think the “Neurons” in the Neural Networks of today are actually neuron simulations? Not by a long shot! They are not even trying to be. “Neuron” in this context means “thing that holds a number from 0 to 1”. That is it. There is nothing else.

That’s an unnecessary insult - I’m not advocating for that, I’m stating it’s theoretically possible according to our knowledge, and would be an example of a computer surpassing a human in art creation. Whether the simulation is a person with rights or not would be a hell of a discussion indeed.

Sorry about the insulting tone.

I do also want to clarify that I’m not claiming the current model architectures will scale to that, or that it will happen within my lifetime. It just seems ridiculous for people to claim that “AI will never be better than a human”, because that’s a ridiculous claim to have about what is, to our current understanding, just a computation problem.

That is the reason why I hate the term “AI”. You never know whether the person using it means “Machine Learning Technologies we have today” or “Potential technology which might exist in the future”.

And if humans, with our evolved fleshy brains that do all kinds of other things can make art, it’s ridiculous to claim that a specially designed powerful computation unit cannot surpass that.

Yeah… you know not every problem is compute-able right? This is known as the halting problem.

Also, I’m not interested in discussing Sci-Fi future tech. At that point we might as well be talking about Unicorns, since it is theoretically possible for future us to genetically modify a equine an give it on horn on the forehead.

Also, why would you want such a machine anyways?

It’s not a matter of if “AI” can outperform humans, it’s a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.

You are not judging what is here. The tech you speak of, that will surpass humans, does not exist. You are making up a Sci-Fi fantasy and acting like it is real. You could say it may perhaps, at some point, exist. At that point we might as well start talking about all sorts of other technically possible Sci-Fi technology which does not exist beyond fictional media.

Also, would simulating a human and then forcing them to work non-stop count as slavery? It would. You are advocating for the creation of synthetic slaves… But we should save moral judgement for when that technology is actually in horizon.

AI is a bad term because when people hear it they start imagining things that don’t exist, and start operating in the imaginary, rather than what actually is here. Because what is here cannot go beyond what is already there, as is the nature of the minimization of the Loss Function.

Reminds me of that tweet someone made of them making a vibe coded Software as a Service, but then people found exploits to get the services without paying and whatnot and the vibe coder didn’t know how to fix it.

That’s not how AI works

How does it work then? I see lot’s pf people claiming to know how it works… only to not actually know how the training works exactly, only a superficial understanding.

How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?

Ah yes, because people in 3rd world countries earning $1 an hour or less to label that data for the image gen can 100% afford the $10/month for a subscription or a pc to run locally.

Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.

How so?

The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.

The fact that you think AI training and humans looking at thinks are the same thing tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.

You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.

1. True. However, this argument should not be about semantics;
2. I got news for ya.

You don’t own the definition of art.

This is not about definitions, I won’t spend time arguing semantics with you. Also, why re-state yourself?

AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online

Without social development, all forms of technological development will do nothing but allow for greater forms of torment.

Oops, just wanted to write a quick comment but it evolved into me giving some of my thoughts on AI gen as a means of artistry. Oh well, not deleting this now.

I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art.

Most self proclaimed AI artists just type a prompt, maybe do a bit of “prompt engineering” (Read: putting the name of a good artist on the prompt) and then in-paint (Read: re-prompting, but only affects a specific area). That does not give you enough control over the drawing to do anything interesting.

I say this from personal experience. Even small differences is facial expressions, too small to be described with words, can make a big impact. The no. reason artists don’t use AI and dislike it is because it doesn’t given enough control over the final image, because it does not let them put in details which cannot be described through words. You might say we might someday have an AI that (somehow) gives you more control, but that would nullify the whole “advantage” of AI: Not having to spend time worrying about the details. If you are going to spend 4 hours prompting in details… you could have just gotten a better result by just drawing it yourself.

Think of it like making a level in Mario Maker VS making a game in a game engine. Sure, making things in Mario Maker is faster than making a game yourself, but it doesn’t give you the same fine grain control that making a game from scratch would. (But even this is not a perfect analogy has, in Mario Maker you actually get to choose where the blocks go, instead of with AI, where you can only describe how the blocks go and hope the AI gets it right with little hope of editing it yourself.)

Actually, about that “editing it yourself”. In this hypothetical AI Mario Maker scenario, you could go into Mario Maker’s editor mode and edit the level with the same amount of detail a normal, handcrafted, Mario Maker level would, but with AI image gen, you get the image and… Ya, about has useful as any other downloaded image. Artists typically create layers to do their art thing, but AI output puts everything in one layer, making hard to edit. I could go on this, but I don’t have all the time in the world to write this. Someone posted this video on !fuck_ai@lemmy.world , where an AI “artists” quit AI because of these problems of lack of control. (Don’t judge me based on the video, I found it on the aforementioned community here (lemmy.ml link))

I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.

That’s the multi billion dollar the AI companies are trying to solve, having to pay wages. The far right loves this as they feel like those who worked hard to develop artistic skills are below them somehow. Part of the conservative rhetoric. AI: The New Aesthetics of Fascism by Gareth Watkins.

I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.

I feel like people who want talk and argue about AI should know how the training works at a mathematical level. I swear the number of people who act like it’s magic is way too much. I say this because it would give you a really good idea of how specialized training won’t solve the lack of originality problem. I haven’t had a refresher on this so I might be misremembering some things… Any who, this playlist is pretty good I think.

I, honestly, never used Reddit that much anyways. It’s algorithms were made to keep me on the site at all costs and I never liked that.

Done.

Feel like this belongs in !fuck_ai@lemmy.world

Think I should cross-post?

hmm… And why would you say supporting Russia and Palestine count has “understanding geopolitics”? I say this as someone who does not know too much about it.

More spyware! Yay! But this time, barely disguised as an AI feature.

Lemmy and other fediverse platforms have, in general, trended towards an increase in users. Been here for a year and I can assure you I have noticed a slow increase in activity.

Reminds me of this:

Lemmy does not have an engagement based algorithm. It does not over analyze your every move to keep you on the site. This means you will have to do content curation yourself.

First of all, the block button exists, use liberally.

Second, the subscribe button exists, so use it to curate a nice subscribed feed

Third, I do believe there are third party clients (lemmy apps made by others) that have a word filter feature which allow you to automatically hide post and comments which contain certain keywords. (I think Voyager has that. Download mobile app here. Use the site version of the app here. Keep in mind that it uses lemm.ee as its default instance.)

But yeah, content curration is kinda just left up to you. Subscribe, Block. That’s it.

Alternatively, you could join a “themed instance”, that is, an instance made to house a particular community or interest, like that star-trek instance, but Lemmy does not have enough users for those to be able to exist.

If you want creative stuff, might want to have a look at !artshare@lemmy.world? Sorry, I don’t have much for you.